This
arrangement simply demonstrates that artisans of the Brexit (exit of Britain
from the European Community) have used it to gain notoriety, to criticize, to
create an opposition to the ruling power, but their intentions were many, but
certainly not to come to power. It's so much more comfortable to be in the
opposition!

Look
this young woman who says ingenuously, the day after the vote "I opened my
eyes," or "if there is another referendum, I'll be more
careful."

However,
it is not a unique case, far from it, if you see Google search statistics,
which show that research on the European Community increased by 250% AFTER the
vote.

One
can add to this crazy finding, that the areas that voted for "Leave"
are often deprived areas, which are those that receive the more important
Community aid.

If
at this is added that the UKIP leader, the party which promoted the
"Leave" (get out) and ideologist of the referendum, many years ago,
Nigel Farage, recognized on television, AFTER the vote, that one of the main
arguments put forward and hammered throughout the campaign, is simply a lie (a
mistake, as he says), we realize how much we
have a very serious and complex context, highlighting the public ignorance on
the subject, his desire to protest against a system that he knows very bad and
does not understand, the need for protagonism of the leaders of the movement,
which results in a huge scam whose consequences will be enormous, at the
same time politically and at the economic and social levels, and in the whole
world.

We
can expect a serious crisis that will affect us very directly in the coming
years.

Why
this article in a blog on Agriculture?

Because
the parallel, for those who are very interested in the issue of glyphosate and
pesticides in general, is obvious and immediate.

The
questioning of pesticides, in the current state of legislation, is a huge scam.

Populism
and manipulation of public opinion are obvious in a matter in which we have a very serious and complex context,
highlighting the public ignorance on the subject, his desire to protest against
a system that he knows very bad and does not understand, the need for
protagonism of the leaders of the movement, which results in a huge scam whose
consequences will be enormous.

So
I headed this article especially for those who have signed one of the
innumerable petitions calling for a ban of glyphosate, and that continue to
receive daily a harassment of warrior messages from different pressure
"citizens" groups as Avaaz, SumOfUs, Change, or from environmental
groups like Greenpeace.

Not
being sectarian, I authorize non-signatory and even the opponents to these
petitions, to read this post.

You
signed one or more petitions. You almost won. You're probably proud of this
result. The extension of the authorization of glyphosate should be 15 years, it
will be only 18 months.

In
the confusion of the Brexit and facing a blocked situation, the European
Commission finally take a decision without the agreement of the member states.
The method is questionable, but honestly, I am delighted with the result.
Glyphosate is in a survival state in Europe until December 2017.

Time
has come for me to give you my perspective on what you thought contribute by
signing these petitions:

-The
fight against the poisoning of the population,

-The
fight against Monsanto,

-The
reduction of the use of chemicals in agriculture,

-The
reduction of pollution in agriculture,

-The
fight against global warming,

-The
takeover of the people against the lobbies.

Let's
see it together.

The fight against the poisoning of
the population.

Pesticides
are these filthy chemicals that farmers apply for fun on the food they will
then try to make you eat. And among those, glyphosate is probably the worst of
all. Brief summary of the situation, which seems to correspond quite well to
the thinking of many people, right?

I
do not know if you followed the fiery debate between anti and pro-glyphosate.
IARC (a WHO program) has classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.

Three
other WHO programs say otherwise. Curious and somewhat contradictory, right? If
the same organization, international reference in its field, supposed to ensure
the health of humanity, is able to publish a thing and its opposite, perhaps
should we ask about the value of his conclusions, and even its mere existence,
right?

In
fact, one member of the IARC, Christopher Portier, is also known to be an
environmental activist of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Don't
you think that it looks like a very strong form of political lobbying? If you
want to change things in a concrete sense, place your pawns up in the
leadership. This is the basis of lobbying.

Finally
on this point, note that IARC has not hesitated to dismiss some recognized
scientific studies, to be able to reach this conclusion.

We
discover that the chicory salad is directly responsible (98.1%) of infectious
diseases, or the slaughter of pigs is directly related (97.4%) with the
production of documentary films.

Still
see the american website http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
that will show you, supporting
statistics, that the US import of Norwegian oil is directly related (95.5%)
with victims of collisions between a car and a train, or that suicide by
hanging has a 99.8% relationship with US spending on science, space and
technology. Yet Nicolas Cage, in his films, does not reach this level: the
correlation is only 66.6% with the dead drowned after falling into a pool.

We
can say what we want with statistics. The figures are true, the lies come from
the false connections.

Agricultural
products are healthy, although a very low level of pesticide can be detected.
But there are people who have political objectives, using us, putting the
finger where it hurts or scares us, to get there.

Well, okay, you've been swindled.
But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

Let
us see the continuation.

The fight against Monsanto.

The
power of symbols !!!!

Monsanto
is a very large company, no doubt, but it has mostly been erected as a symbol
because of its specialization in transgenic seeds. Many other companies in the
agrochemical sector and transgenic seeds are on the same scale, or much larger,
such as ChemChina, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, BASF, Syngenta (also recently bought by
ChemChina) Sumitomo, and I forget some.

I
don't believe that Monsanto suffer many of the local prohibition (we speak only
of the European Community) of glyphosate, entered the public domain since 2000.
It has become a generic herbicide, such as aspirin or paracetamol in pharmacy,
so cheap and easy to find, on which manufacturers make little profit. Much of
glyphosate used in the world is manufactured by Chinese companies. Monsanto
sells, of course, but that is not its primary business.

In reality, the ideological
struggle against the giants of agrochemicals will profit primarily to ...
agrochemical giants themselves.

Nothing
is worse for an industry to have as main competitor, a generic product as
famous and widespread as glyphosate. Its ban will enable the development and
launch of new herbicides, not less dangerous, not more effective, not less
polluter, but much more expensive for farmers, and also much more profitable
for the giants of chemistry.

Monsanto,
on behalf of all his colleagues, the other giants of agrochemistry, thank you
for the enormous benefits that removing glyphosate will enable it to achieve,
thus strengthening its economic position and power.

Well, okay, you've been swindled
one more time. But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

Let
us see the continuation.

The reduction of the use of
chemicals in agriculture.

Less
glyphosate, it is less chemistry, right?

However,
conservation agriculture, and especially low-tillage techniques have some
interesting agronomic consequences. For example, the fact of not plowing can
significantly increase the activity of soil life, so its biodiversity. The
grasses that grow after germination are also contributing to biodiversity. Who
says biodiversity, says parasites and predators, balance, and drastic reduction
of the negative environmental impact of agriculture. Gurus of biodynamics as
Claude Bourguignon, can’t pronounce their catchphrase any more "this soil
is dead" because these soils found an extraordinary life again.

We
remove glyphosate, so we go back to plowing, we reduce biodiversity on the ground
and in the soil, and we increase the incidence of pests, because of the
reduction of predatory wildlife. We are faced with an increased risk of having
to use pesticides.

The
return to tillage will result in inevitable increase in loss of soil fertility,
thus increasing fertilizer requirements. In fact, the vast majority of fertilizers,
are chemical fertilizers.

Therefore,
the removal of glyphosate will result in an inevitable increase in the use of
chemicals in agriculture.

Besides
the more you do mechanical work, the more you use tractors, the more you
consume fuels derived from petrochemicals.

Still
missed!

Well, okay, you've been swindled
once again. But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

Let
us see the continuation.

The fight against global warming.

As
we have seen before, the benefits of the ban of glyphosate are limited more and
more.

It
must still let you know that tillage reduction techniques allow to imprison in
soils a huge amount of CO2, the famous carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

What
is the relationship with glyphosate?

It
is huge this report, because this herbicide is used almost systematically
before planting in low-tillage techniques. Basically, without going much into
details, you will not till after the previous crop, so you let the crop scraps
on the surface, you let germinate the weed seeds, many, then you apply a
glyphosate, which kills them and has no effect on the following crop, then you
sow with a seeder, specifically designed for this purpose. The crop can thus
germinate and begin to grow without competition from weeds. The later
germinations will occur on an already grown plant, so dominant, and will have
no impact on productivity.

What
will happen without glyphosate?

There
are currently no alternatives available in order to maintain the technique,
both in terms of effectiveness and on the economic aspect. There are some other
herbicides, but less effective and much more expensive, so not profitable on
crops whose margin is very low. Farmers therefore will often return to plowing.
Who says plowing says fuel consumption, with the effects of pollution arising
and most of all, these soils will release millions of tons of CO2 into the
atmosphere, since they will be plowed again.

So
the ban Glyphosate will have in the short term, direct and rapid adverse impact
on global warming.

Well, okay, you've been swindled
again. But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

Let
us see the continuation.

The reduction of the pollution in
agriculture.

You
know, since I have already told you in this blog, I use herbicides,
specifically glyphosate, in mature orchards, in small doses and twice a year,
to keep clean the tree row to control the consumption of water and fertilizers
(herbs also like that), and to reduce the incidence of fungal diseases,
responsible of important damage in orchards, favored by moisture maintained by
the presence of weeds under the tree, and that we control with a sometimes
heavy use of fungicides, often synthetic.

The
ban of glyphosate places me with a problem I can solve in several ways:

-Either
the use of other herbicides, but more expensive, with major dose, and that will
probably make me more applications per year,

-Either
mulching, soil cover, under the trees to prevent the development of weeds.
There are two types of mulch, fragmented plant scraps, which require high
availability of material, which is not my case (and which is the case of
nobody, actually) or the plastic mulch available on demand, simply go to the
manufacturer,

-Either
ground cover selected by a grass cover, with low development, and mechanical
maintenance. This is experimental, and has to prove its efficiency. This grass,
assuming it to be effective, will need water and food. It will enter into
direct competition with the crop. I can't generalize a technique of this type,
especially in a semi-desert climate, as is the case here, without knowing its
short and long term effects.

So
my short-term choice is between more chemistry, plastic, or over consumption of
water and fertilizers. The second one is the most economical and safest.

In
the long term, can we say that it is a progress, considering aspects of
sustainability and environment?

Especially
as mulching, whether plastic or not, greatly favors the development and
outbreaks of voles. And who controls voles in the nature? Especially snakes and
owls, but they don't like plastic. So I will use first poisoned baits (also
risky for raptors and snakes). One more progress on environmental and
sustainable plan!!!

-I
have a little hope in a fourth way, the shallow tillage but it presents to me a
series of serious problems. I irrigated by drip, with two lines, one on each
side of the tree row, laid on the ground. It allows me a good control of the
contributed volumes of water, with a large useful root volume. Tillage can
force me to do several things that I don't like: destroy the most shallow root
system of trees, bury or suspend the dripper lines, two solutions with solid
disadvantages, to pass frequently in orchards with a tractor, therefore consume
a large amount of diesel, compact the soil, damaging the vegetation cover of
the interrow. I don't know the type of equipment that comes to solve all
problems with a minimum of inconvenience.

In
short, currently, there is only much worse solutions to all points of view.
I'll regret glyphosate, if it disappears. This is a great help for the development
of agroecology.

Well, okay, you've been swindled
this time too. But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

Let
us see the continuation.

The seizure of power of the people
against lobbies.

You
have not taken up arms, you have not stormed the Bastille, it was already done.

You
stormed parliamentarians, using a lethal weapon, the petition, and it almost
worked, because basically they are as ignorant as you, but in addition, they
have a political position to defend, with all resulting benefits, particularly
power and income.

You
sign, and you sleep quiet. You made a citizen action for a better world.

We
must ban this poison, this impure blood!

Ah,
my dear readers, what vigor, what spirit of revolution, what epic struggle
against the multinationals, these foul monsters that devour the world. On the
scaffold!!!!!

Anger
is brewing in cities.

In
cities?

Yes,
especially in cities. Big or small.

It
is strange how this anger is urban (or from people who live in villages, but
have an urban life and activity, which is the same).

Citizens
and environmentalists pressure groups, who manipulate public opinion using
scary arguments. And it does not matter if it's not true or if it's only a
half-truth. You have to make the people shake. That's power. This is mere
populism, that is, as defined in the online dictionary Reverso "political
strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of
ordinary people."

In
fact, if you are looking for the definition of the word lobby on the same
online dictionary you find "pressure group".

People
did not really take power against the lobbies, he has been manipulated by a
lobby to fight against another lobby. A lobby tries, with your help, to gain
power over another lobby. People is only
a weapon in a power struggle, not a goal.

Our
dear politicians, often cowards by nature, have been influenced. A lobby
against the other. It's so comfortable and enriching, a chair in a European
bodies!!!

Above
all, they should not take the risk of losing their place in next elections.

Well, well, okay, really you've
been swindled from beginning to end. But hey, when in doubt, as they say, huh?

You
know, people like being lied to...

And
populist lobbies, especially environmentalists, know very well how to lie to
the people, and that's nothing new.

We
are exactly in the same situation. Except that in this case, the consequences
are considerably more serious, especially indirect ones.

With
the Brexit, we could see the voluntary withdrawal of the UK from the European
Community through a manipulation of public opinion based on lies and populist
arguments.

With
the Glyphexit we will perhaps see the involuntary exit of the glyphosate by the
European Community through a manipulation of public opinion based on lies and
populist arguments.

Thanks
to your signature, if glyphosate is finally banned (something which I hope will
not happen), you will have taken an active part in:

-The
decline of the serious and reliable Europe, preoccupied with solving the REAL
problems, which bases its decisions on irrefutable scientific arguments,

-The worsening of the
economic situation of farmers, now sentenced to use only proprietary products,
so more expensive, significantly reducing their margins,

-The enrichment of
multinational agrochemical you wanted to ruin,

-Global warming,

-Soil erosion,

-The loss of biodiversity in
agricultural areas,

-The increase in consumption
of fossil fuels for agricultural needs,

-The increase in the use of
chemicals in agriculture,

-The loss of competitiveness
of European agriculture, hence its economic weakness directly related to the
disappearance of farmers and farm abandonment, or purchase by increasingly
larger structures, resulting in a reduction of family farming